madras

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ? have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted. we lost owners who had done good, then done bad. have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does. Still, you have what you wanted. the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before. link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past. what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking. Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining. of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's. freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th. do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ? you have what you wanted. We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too. been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ? oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that. what about the Halls and "Freds" other 14 seasons ? Cherry picking. When exactly do you think Ashley - or anybody - will get us back into europe again ? You have what you wanted. Be happy. no idea,but fred wasn't going to get us back there. obviuosly fred and co wern't a patch on westwood,westwood won something eh ? ridsdale done a great job at leeds (if you forget where he left them)

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ? have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted. we lost owners who had done good, then done bad. have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does. Still, you have what you wanted. the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before. link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past. what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking. Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining. of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's. freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th. do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ? you have what you wanted. We now have a board who will never match the old board, and you might be waiting a long time for someone else to match them too. been looking but i can't find your congratulation thread to ashley for improving in his first season where fred left us in his last ? oh i noticed you didn't answer the question either.....well fancy that.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ? have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted. we lost owners who had done good, then done bad. have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does. Still, you have what you wanted. the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before. link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past. what about the other 12 years ? Cherry picking. Again, you have what you wanted. You wanted them out. So stop complaining. of course it's cherry picking. you see the recent is a better guide. it's a bit like in the business world. the recent 3 years will tell you more than 3 years in the 90's. freds 10 years.....6 bottom half finishes. last 3 years all had the spectre of relegation over them even when finishing 7th. do you not think the last 3 years of someones tenure is long enough and recent enough to say which way things are goign ?

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ? have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted. we lost owners who had done good, then done bad. have it your way. We have an owner now who will never do as well, and as only 4 clubs did better, it might be a long time until someone else does. Still, you have what you wanted. the owners we had jan 1st 2007 would never had done aswell as the owners we had 3 years before. link me to where i say this is what i wanted. it's what you wanted, a position where we can't spend anything due to the stupidity and failed gambles of the past.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ? have it your way man. They have gone. We lost good owners, you have what you wanted. we lost owners who had done good, then done bad.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes. club in 1991 couldn't sell for 1.25m quid, half the fee paid 3 years earlier for Gazza. Now it is sold for between 100m and 200m quid, one of the biggest turnovers in the country ? Don't talk to me about the value of the club to prospective owners. yes they done well for a time. how many times do i have to tell you. says something though when the only person who'll touch it doesn't do due dilligence ?

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid. only good owners qualify for europe more than 4 other clubs. End of story. what about owners who drop from 3rd to bottom half and get the club into a position where everyone thinks they are in a very dangerous position financially and prospective buyers take a quick look at the books then leg it ? freds 10 years, 6 bottom half finishes.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round . speculative. We had good owners, now we have bad owners we had to borrow to get by day to day and i personally believe we'd have got relegated with allardyce. neither owners are good or bad. one lot gambled more than the other, fine when the gambles pay off and they were lucky to get out before the price had to be paid.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please) I have said on numerous occasions the Halls and Shepherd got it wrong with Souness, unlike many others who supported his actions right to the end. But that doesn't make the Halls and Shepherd bad owners and anybody else "better". i never said they were bad owners,no matter how much you attempt to make out thats what i think. i do however think they were going backwards in 2007,had been for 3 or 4 years and didn't look like turning it round.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team. rather surprisingly they haven't always been the top 4. We will see what Arsenal do when Wenger calls it a day. They are in debt though, aren't they ? No point telling me about Souness, it was numerous others who supported him, and agreed with all of his signings and sales. i've pointed out lots and lots and lots of times that i'm not against the club having debt. do pay attention. re souness.....does that mean you think fred got it wrong in allowing souness to do those things ? (straight answers only please)

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back. please tell us all how the current top 4, are, eerrr, the top 4, particularly Liverpool and Arsenal. Oooooh easy ones first. goody. through not spending 70% of turnover on wages so more money is left for transfers and finacing loans which makes it a lot better when asking banks etc for loans. through not appointing the likes of souness and roeder (well liverpool did and look how long it took them to recover) through building when you are doing well instead of getting in a free transfer when in touching distance of the champs league instead of spunking 50mill in a failed attempt to catch up. through paying some attention to the club instead of just the first team.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want . don't bother madras. Even a 5 year old could tell you that if you make profits in transfer windows what will happen to you. and the same 5yr old would understand that you cant borrow for ever if people don't think you'll be able to pay it back.

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing" the current top 4 are all debt free though aren't they. been here and already explained it in a straight forward way. no dodging etc. i'll explain in a way a 5yr old could understand if you want .

what exactly do you want to "argue" about ? Our league positions ? The fact that they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and going bust into one worth between 100m - 200m quid and qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 other clubs ? Explain. I'm absolutely fascinated here........ alternativly freds last 10 years gave 6 below half way finishes, 2 of those euro qualifications came via cup runners ups like cardiff and millwall. over freds last 3 years both everton and spurs done better and looked like doing better in the future. the garden wasn't rosy,he'd done well previously but the gambles didn't pay off and he was in danger of losing the house. stop arguing and cherry picking man. Even "freds" last 10 finishes are higher than where Ashley is going to leave us and where the club was before the Halls and Shepherd found us and how their predecessors did. And they understood HOW to be successful. What's your problem with this ? cherry picking ? :mackems: stop arguing....translation......"NE5 won't answer direct questions about the way we were going or how we were going to continue the way he wants which he even admits fred wasn't going to do" I'm showing you a board who understood how a big club with ambition to succeed should behave. You don't get it. You have insisted they are "accountable" for errors, despite overall showing themselves to be a good board. They have been held "accountable". The club is now being run "like a business", with a "plan". Be happy. I'm tired of this. You have got what you wanted. please link to where this is what i wanted. i can link you to where anyone with sense legged it when they saw the accounts. tell me back in 2007 when the previous board brought in allardyce were they going to invest the way you want or behave the way you said ie run it on a shoestring ? I'm tired of this. At least I can admit that I was wrong about Allardyce, and I've explained what I think the thought process was behind appointing him. what have i been wrong about ?

indeed. Have you looked at the league table recently ? Never mind though, its all a good business plan. i see so where was your congrats last season for finishing higher than the previous ? why didn't you whinge at the drop form 3rd to bottom half ? hypocrite.

what exactly do you want to "argue" about ? Our league positions ? The fact that they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and going bust into one worth between 100m - 200m quid and qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 other clubs ? Explain. I'm absolutely fascinated here........ alternativly freds last 10 years gave 6 below half way finishes, 2 of those euro qualifications came via cup runners ups like cardiff and millwall. over freds last 3 years both everton and spurs done better and looked like doing better in the future. the garden wasn't rosy,he'd done well previously but the gambles didn't pay off and he was in danger of losing the house. stop arguing and cherry picking man. Even "freds" last 10 finishes are higher than where Ashley is going to leave us and where the club was before the Halls and Shepherd found us and how their predecessors did. And they understood HOW to be successful. What's your problem with this ? cherry picking ? :mackems: stop arguing....translation......"NE5 won't answer direct questions about the way we were going or how we were going to continue the way he wants which he even admits fred wasn't going to do" I'm showing you a board who understood how a big club with ambition to succeed should behave. You don't get it. You have insisted they are "accountable" for errors, despite overall showing themselves to be a good board. They have been held "accountable". The club is now being run "like a business", with a "plan". Be happy. I'm tired of this. You have got what you wanted. please link to where this is what i wanted. i can link you to where anyone with sense legged it when they saw the accounts. tell me back in 2007 when the previous board brought in allardyce were they going to invest the way you want or behave the way you said ie run it on a shoestring ?

what exactly do you want to "argue" about ? Our league positions ? The fact that they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and going bust into one worth between 100m - 200m quid and qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 other clubs ? Explain. I'm absolutely fascinated here........ alternativly freds last 10 years gave 6 below half way finishes, 2 of those euro qualifications came via cup runners ups like cardiff and millwall. over freds last 3 years both everton and spurs done better and looked like doing better in the future. the garden wasn't rosy,he'd done well previously but the gambles didn't pay off and he was in danger of losing the house. stop arguing and cherry picking man. Even "freds" last 10 finishes are higher than where Ashley is going to leave us and where the club was before the Halls and Shepherd found us and how their predecessors did. And they understood HOW to be successful. What's your problem with this ? cherry picking ? :mackems: stop arguing....translation......"NE5 won't answer direct questions about the way we were going or how we were going to continue the way he wants which he even admits fred wasn't going to do"

no, you're wrong. Pretty much the majority of people insisted it should be run like a "business" rather than a football club and we would be better off for it. Which always astounded me, tbh more businesslike as in "look at whats happened to other clubs that thought they could just keep on borrowing"

what exactly do you want to "argue" about ? Our league positions ? The fact that they transformed a club with one foot in the 3rd division and going bust into one worth between 100m - 200m quid and qualified for europe more than everybody but 4 other clubs ? Explain. I'm absolutely fascinated here........ alternativly freds last 10 years gave 6 below half way finishes, 2 of those euro qualifications came via cup runners ups like cardiff and millwall. over freds last 3 years both everton and spurs done better and looked like doing better in the future. the garden wasn't rosy,he'd done well previously but the gambles didn't pay off and he was in danger of losing the house.

Aye Diamond in Ponteland, they were both watching the game so it's probably true. I'm sure i've heard Shearer say he likes Souness on an interview before aswell. surely goes without saying, Souness and Shearer would laud each other in the press like a husband and wife's oral sex agreement doesn't it just mean everyone on the summariser couch circuit is complimentary about each other ?

in the pro game does anyone say they don't like someone ?

i agree, i'm hoping for a man utd/barce final.

hopes.......barce wins reckons...... chelsea on pens.

hasn't really been proved by othere euro teams waltzing through them though. maybe they emphasise attacking that bit more and it's worked so far. certainly has aestheticaly. how many times in recent years have Madrid been found seriously wanting defensively in the champs league? Their capitaulation at Anfield says it all as did liverpools at home to chelsea ?

hasn't really been proved by othere euro teams waltzing through them though. maybe they emphasise attacking that bit more and it's worked so far. certainly has aestheticaly.